Quote:
Originally Posted by Readinglevelup
I'd be fine with being famous, but not in the way that everyone knows my name. Like I'd be famous, but nobody would see my face or know much about me. Like a double life. When I'd be doing one thing I'd be famous for, I'd hide my personal things, but in normal life, I'd be open.
|
That's actually my take on being famous too
I'm actually a writer, so I would love for my work to be famous and be discussed, but I wouldn't want to be famous myself as an individual. I want my work to recognised, but I do not to be recognised myself. For me creative outlets like music, writing, art . . . they speak for themselves, the creator doesn't need the fame, because it is the artwork that speaks and expresses and is the cause of discussion.
I think if an individual is famous to the levels of Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, J.K.Rowling, the Queen, whoever really . . . they lose all independence, freedom, and right to privacy. Their every action, statement and piece of attire is criticised, discussed, debated, questioned - they have to watch everything they do and say in order to maintain the image they want, and they can't do ordinary and everyday things because of the danger and scandal involved.
So no, I can't see the fun in being famous either, but I can see the allure and desire for one's work to be famous, because in that one can fully express themselves and achieve a kind of immortality, whilst at the same time enjoying the perks that come with being out of the public eye, of being a "nobody" in a world of "somebodies".